Where did God come from?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm saying that any formation of values (positive or negative) must be based upon a delusion. So, yes, everyone would be fooling themselves but I don't see anything negative about that. What interests me is that some people accept their beliefs and others try to rationalize them.

Well, creating meaning for yourself isn't delusion, as long as you acknowledge it as a subjective interpretation. I'd describe delusional more along the lines of differing from established fact. Saying 2+2 = fish, delusional. Saying breakfast is the best meal of the day, not delusional. It's a value judgment for a subjective question, just like seeing life as a positive experience is (or negative). But to call it delusion is to imply that there is something false about it.

Calling one's interpretation of life "subjective" is completely truthful. Calling it delusional is a subjective interpretation itself, and no more rational than any other. It's also needlessly negative, and a misuse of the word delusional when subjective would suffice.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm saying that any formation of values (positive or negative) must be based upon a delusion. So, yes, everyone would be fooling themselves but I don't see anything negative about that. What interests me is that some people accept their beliefs and others try to rationalize them.

Humans cannot understand the true nature of reality. Therefore, you are correct that all values are based upon a delusion. However, all delusions are not equal. When you look at a flame, for example, you cannot see what is really going on; you cannot see the atoms recombining. What you see could be considered a delusion made by your mind to describe something you cannot really see. But this delusion is perfectly fine because it gives you all the information you need to survive.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
see right THERE. "INTRINSIC" worth. intrinsic means contained WITHIN it, within the very act itself. it is in direct opposition to EXTRINSIC worth, which is exactly what the law of god etc is!

the fact that you can love your wife arose because a conciousness with the potential to love exists, and this has been given birth by the accidental coming together of chemicals etc. however, from the point of view of the actual CONCIOSNESS, that is immaterial, as the fact that there is worth in these things exists irrespective of the origin of the conciousness, whether it was divine, or accidental. both lead to the same conclusion and both have little meaning compared to the fact that you DO have the potential to love here and NOW!

Let's try again. I'm not suggesting that people don't act and feel spontaneously as human beings without first constructing a logical proof for God's existence. I'm suggesting that we can infer the existence of God because of the way we act and feel as human beings. I'm suggesting that our humanity is an indication that the seemingly indifferent and impersonal universe might be other than we think.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Humans cannot understand the true nature of reality. Therefore, you are correct that all values are based upon a delusion. However, all delusions are not equal. When you look at a flame, for example, you cannot see what is really going on; you cannot see the atoms recombining. What you see could be considered a delusion made by your mind to describe something you cannot really see. But this delusion is perfectly fine because it gives you all the information you need to survive.

This is only valid if atoms are "true" and the flame is "false".

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Let's try again. I'm not suggesting that people don't act and feel spontaneously as human beings without first constructing a logical proof for God's existence. I'm suggesting that we can infer the existence of God because of the way we act and feel as human beings. I'm suggesting that our humanity is an indication that the seemingly indifferent and impersonal universe might be other than we think.

Our feelings and actions imply a creator? No, not really. That's fine if you believe that, but to say that the logical gap between one and is other is incredibly large would be generous. We have consciousness, ergo God exists? Is that the line of thought?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Our feelings and actions imply a creator? No, not really. That's fine if you believe that, but to say that the logical gap between one and is other is incredibly large would be generous. We have consciousness, ergo God exists? Is that the line of thought?

Yes, that is my belief. I've never really said anything else. Constructing logical proofs might supply intellectual butress to an argument, but, ultimately, a personal God can only be reached by personal conviction. That being said, I think the phenomenon of the human person hints pretty strongly at theology.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, that is my belief. I've never really said anything else. Constructing logical proofs might supply intellectual butress to an argument, but, ultimately, a personal God can only be reached by personal conviction. That being said, I think the phenomenon of the human person hints pretty strongly at theology.

Like I said, the logical leap required is an act of faith, not one that has any actual connection. To equate having feelings with proving a Christian God (or just to say it suggests a god in general) strains the imagination, unless you're already so entrenched in a belief that it doesn't require much logical backing to reinforce it.

As for this: a personal God can only be reached by personal conviction ...it's the favorite argument of many, or some variation thereof. And not just for a god, but for any paranormal belief. It shuns evidence for intuitive feeling. If something feels right to you, the you believe it, or at least that's what your statement implies. Evidence for such a belief, or evidence against it, become secondary concerns. It's blind faith. As always with such matters, you are free to believe it, but know that that is all it is: a belief, not evidence or even a very strong argument.

It's not a coincidence that most religions not only require a certain amount of faith, but encourage it. Sometimes to the point of absurdity, where if a person believes in something despite evidence to the contrary, it is an example of how strong their faith is. To resort solely to reason would be the ruination of most organized religion.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Let's try again. I'm not suggesting that people don't act and feel spontaneously as human beings without first constructing a logical proof for God's existence. I'm suggesting that we can infer the existence of God because of the way we act and feel as human beings. I'm suggesting that our humanity is an indication that the seemingly indifferent and impersonal universe might be other than we think.

or perhaps the idea of GOD has been instilled so deeply by education into our unconcious minds that we have become incapable of conceiving wonder/beauty/divinity/faith without it. again, the leap of logic is huge, but then again, i see nuthing wrong with it if you choose to describe the fealing in that context. although, you shud be wary not to also associate the dogmatic teachings{which are far removed from faith or divinity} of faiths which also depend on god as an entity, with the fealings that your basing your personal god on.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for this: a personal God can only be reached by personal conviction ...it's the favorite argument of many, or some variation thereof. And not just for a god, but for any paranormal belief. It shuns evidence for intuitive feeling. If something feels right to you, the you believe it, or at least that's what your statement implies. Evidence for such a belief, or evidence against it, become secondary concerns. It's blind faith. As always with such matters, you are free to believe it, but know that that is all it is: a belief, not evidence or even a very strong argument.

Is that not the exact argument you just made to support your own subjective morals?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is that not the exact argument you just made to support your own subjective morals?

Not at all. You're misunderstanding the application. He's positing that the only way to know an objective truth (God's existence) is through intrinsic faith, which of course is subjective. Difference is, if I make a subjective interpretation I realize that's all it is.

To use an earlier example: If I think that breakfast is the best meal of the day, I don't imagine that "breakfast is the best meal" is an objective truth. I realize that it is subjective, and don't present it as ineffable truth.

If we dealt with a factual realm (mathematics, for example) then you do have objectively true and false statements. But Zaius' thinking takes subjectivity for factual truth, as does any system that claims you can know God through faith.

So yeah, morality is subjective, much as it bugs a lot of theologians. Culture and evolutionary templates create a fair amount of shared morality for us, but it remains a personal interpretation. But where religion errs is that it takes that a step further to assume they are an absolute authority on morals, and that their subjectivity results in objective morals because of a higher edict.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
To resort solely to reason would be the ruination of most organized religion.

Unfortunately, "to resort soley to reason" would also result in the ruination of what most would call a good life. You're insistence on affirming only that which can be experimentally verified isn't rational at all. It's a belief, which, if lived out consistently, calls for a world with no room for the human person, a reductio ad adsurdum that, in the best case, leads to Cloud Cuckoo Land and, in the worst, the guillotine or the Gulag.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This is only valid if atoms are "true" and the flame is "false".

Atoms are true and a flame is only what our eyes see. If you look at a flame with different imaging tools, you will see something quite different. However, that is not what I was talking about.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Unfortunately, "to resort soley to reason" would also result in the ruination of what most would call a good life. You're insistence on affirming only that which can be experimentally verified isn't rational at all. It's a belief, which, if lived out consistently, calls for a world with no room for the human person, a reductio ad adsurdum that, in the best case, leads to Cloud Cuckoo Land and, in the worst, the guillotine or the Gulag.

If we're logical, humans don't exist? And reason leads directly to executions and mental institutions? Please make sense. Or at the very least, don't turn my words into embellished straw men of their original selves. At least try to address the entire point in context, not remove a setence or two to misinterpret. Not only is it intellectually fruitless, but it's insulting.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If we're logical, humans don't exist? And reason leads directly to executions and mental institutions? Please make sense. Or at the very least, don't turn my words into embellished straw men of their original selves. At least try to address the entire point in context, not remove a setence or two to misinterpret. Not only is it intellectually fruitless, but it's insulting.

No, if you attempt to construct a world in which the human person is reduced to a set of scientifically verifiable biolgical/sociological data and/or functions, you will end up esablishing a world in which virtually no one would want to live.

I don't think I'm setting up straw men when I mention the fact that the twentieth century is full of failed totalitarian experiments that attempted to establish a way of life based soley on reason and logical principles. I don't believe that you yourself are any kind of closet totalitarian. I make the point only to illustrate a possible consequence of some of your ideas. My argument is that the human person is more than the sum of his biology and observable behaviors. He possesses a unique dignity that infers a Creator and, as a consequence, demands "inalienable rights". Abandoning this understanding is dangerous because it leaves the less than apparently useful or socially recalcitrant vulnerable to attack from those with the appropriate will to power.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No, if you attempt to construct a world in which the human person is reduced to a set of scientifically verifiable biolgical/sociological data and/or functions, you will end up esablishing a world in which virtually no one would want to live.

I don't think I'm setting up straw men when I mention the fact that the twentieth century is full of failed totalitarian experiments that attempted to establish a way of life based soley on reason and logical principles. I don't believe that you yourself are any kind of closet totalitarian. I make the point only to illustrate a possible consequence of some of your ideas. My argument is that the human person is more than the sum of his biology and observable behaviors. He possesses a unique dignity that infers a Creator and, as a consequence, demands "inalienable rights". Abandoning this understanding is dangerous because it leaves the less than apparently useful or socially recalcitrant vulnerable to attack from those with the appropriate will to power.

Funny you should quote a term Nietzche coined there at the end. Was it intentional?

Just so clear on what you're advocating: instead of using rational logic as a base for our understanding of the universe, we should defer to intuitive feelings and vague inferences that we can't possibly confirm, then base concrete dogmas, rules, and rights off of these assumptions. Personally, that's far scarier to me than an approach that focuses on what we do know, rather than the dogmatic religious thinking that creates such division in the world based off of this same irrational faith in people that what their religion believes is the truth.

Also lulz at the implied slippery slope argument that a godless world would lead to all sort of unmentionable horror. Fact is, we've never seen any representative example of what such a society would look like. All of civilized history has had some form of divine belief in the vast majority of its population. So all you're doing is making false assumptions to make your viewpoint seem the better one. Personally, if one ascribes to a humanistic worldview, we view the good and evil that people do as the good and evil in people, not given from some higher power. Thus, the good that religion does is really the good that people are capable of. Take away religion, and you'd have good people doing good things, bad people doing bad things. Same as always, really. Except you'd eliminate the fanaticism brought about by the importance placed on blind faith, the faith that shuns reason for extremely fallible intuition.

...

And on a slightly more anecdotal note: a strictly scientific worldview doesn't bother me at all, nor does it bother many. Life is still awesome, or has the potential to be if we choose to live in joy. It is only a burden to those who feel like they have to have an unidentifiable divine source to provide them with a means to happiness. Many do, and that's fine. But it's not the only way to fulfillment.

"They could no longer accept the consolations of the churches, and could obtain no useful advice from Reason."
From Hesse's Das Glasperlenspiel referring the early 1900s. I happen to agree with what he's saying. From a critical perspective I like that he capitalizes "Reason" but not "churches" in the text.

I may be mistaken but that seem to be the problem Zaius is trying to point out. Reason (now a faith itself as Hesse notes) does not provide people with meaning unless they construct it themselves but at the same time makes people meaningless. It's not hard to see the problem created by that.

Of course none of that means one has to believe in God. What it does imply is that, generally speaking, anyone who claims contentment with himself and the world either has formed a personal faith (which may be expressed in religion) so strong that some part of reason is ignored or is lying to himself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"They could no longer accept the consolations of the churches, and could obtain no useful advice from Reason."
From Hesse's Das Glasperlenspiel referring the early 1900s. I happen to agree with what he's saying. From a critical perspective I like that he capitalizes "Reason" but not "churches" in the text.

I may be mistaken but that seem to be the problem Zaius is trying to point out. Reason (now a faith itself as Hesse notes) does not provide people with meaning unless they construct it themselves but at the same time makes people meaningless. It's not hard to see the problem created by that.

Of course none of that means one has to believe in God. What it does imply is that, generally speaking, anyone who claims contentment with himself and the world either has formed a personal faith (which may be expressed in religion) so strong that some part of reason is ignored or is lying to himself.

That assumes that the "default" emotional position, if you will, is depression or nihilism. I reject that claim wholeheartedly. Nothing is inherently good or bad until we interpret it as such. Therefore, yes, we all construct our own philosophy (I'd shy away from calling it religion), but to say that contentment is at odds with logic and reason is to assign objective value to reason (which would be "not fulfilled and/or content" in your example), which it does not have.

My personal feelings on this: The value and meaning we give our lives are subjective. Given ANY worldview, religious or otherwise, we can choose to live in joy or sorrow. Each are equally as valid and equally as likely, since external forces have no intrinsic emotional value for us until we assign them one. So why not choose joy? It's really very simple. Even if you see the universe as essentially a tragedy (I don't, since it doesn't have intrinsic value imo), you can choose to live in joy. It's not delusional. It just is. It's the choice you make, and doesn't have to go against any philosophy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That assumes that the "default" emotional position, if you will, is depression or nihilism. I reject that claim wholeheartedly. Nothing is inherently good or bad until we interpret it as such. Therefore, yes, we all construct our own philosophy (I'd shy away from calling it religion), but to say that contentment is at odds with logic and reason is to assign objective value to reason, which it does not have.

What makes you reject that claim? Reason provides the basis for it. With a sense of perspective nothing exists usefully because nothing is at such a scale that it can truly have an effect. If the default position was not to be nihilistic we would not have philosophy because no one would need it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What makes you reject that claim? Reason provides the basis for it. With a sense of perspective nothing exists usefully because nothing is at such a scale that it can truly have an effect. If the default position was not to be nihilistic we would not have philosophy because no one would need it.

The default position, if we must define one, is the absence of a philosophy. Simple existence. Nihilism is not an absence of philosophy.

And whether or not people "need" philosophy is a moot point. Nothing is needed, in the strictest sense of the world. All assignment of value is voluntary. If it was needed, it wouldn't be subjective, but rather an objective stance that is thrust upon us. People construct philosophies for themselves, regardless of need.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No, if you attempt to construct a world in which the human person is reduced to a set of scientifically verifiable biolgical/sociological data and/or functions, you will end up esablishing a world in which virtually no one would want to live.

I don't think I'm setting up straw men when I mention the fact that the twentieth century is full of failed totalitarian experiments that attempted to establish a way of life based soley on reason and logical principles. I don't believe that you yourself are any kind of closet totalitarian. I make the point only to illustrate a possible consequence of some of your ideas. My argument is that the human person is more than the sum of his biology and observable behaviors. He possesses a unique dignity that infers a Creator and, as a consequence, demands "inalienable rights". Abandoning this understanding is dangerous because it leaves the less than apparently useful or socially recalcitrant vulnerable to attack from those with the appropriate will to power.

1. neitzche was a nihhlistic god complexed idiot

2. you mistakenly assume that a set of morals based in logic can not exist

3. you mistakenly assume that a scientific outlook void of mysticism leads to nihhlism